Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 7:07 AM
18 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,658 Year: 3,695/19,786 Month: 690/1,087 Week: 59/221 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
25262728
29
30Next
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 421 of 445 (613753)
04-27-2011 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by Percy
04-22-2011 6:46 AM


Percy writes:

Hi Robert,

Even other creationists don't agree with how you're defining geology, for example, Steven Austin, professor of geology and chair of the Department of Geology of the Institute for Creation Research. You're just making things up so you can focus attention away from the many things you're wrong about, though in the course of doing this you just introduce more wrong things, like denying even the simple dictionary definition of geology.

But as far as this discussion goes we can leave the definition of geology aside and treat it as just a label. The issue we were discussing was the cooling of magma into rock underground. Magma intrudes into rock and then cools, and by looking at things like grain size one can see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock. Radiometric techniques can establish the age. Taq provided you a link that describes such evidence (Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column), and here is just a little of that evidence:

  1. Radiometric dating gives consistent answers across a variety of different methods, and is also consistent with non-radiometric methods where their range of application overlaps.

  2. Calculations show that the cooling of rock underground from a molten state takes a considerable amount of time, longer than 6000 years for plutons of sufficient size (which is common), and analysis of the rock structure reveals they formed through very slow cooling.

For more details please visit the link. What is your response to this evidence?

--Percy

Steve Austin is a great creationist thinker. yet I still say that these dating methods of yours and cooling ideas are not processes that affect anything people understand to be geology.

Geology is about forces acting on material on earth etc.

Whats being brought up here is chemistry or other worthy fields.

Magna cooling leads to rocks and the rocks are the geology. nOt the cooling. molten material if continued in its state of liquid would have little to do with the study of processes affecting geological change.

Just as water can affect geology it itself is not a item of geology.

A different study with different processes.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Percy, posted 04-22-2011 6:46 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Percy, posted 04-27-2011 5:55 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 437 by edge, posted 05-05-2011 6:16 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 422 of 445 (613760)
04-27-2011 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Robert Byers
04-27-2011 12:58 AM


A side note from the admin-mode
1) Concerning message formatting - I've "personal messaged" you, asking that you make it a practice to insert blank lines between your paragraphs. Doing such makes for nicer reading, regardless of the merit or lack of merit of your content - If nothing else, it looks much better!

2) I fail to see the relevance of whether or not an aspect of scientific study can be properly be called geologic study. Please drop that issue, or at least propose a new topic specific to such. Minnemooseus would even be willing to "Great Debate" you on the matter.

Now a side side note from the non-admin mode:

Geology is about forces acting on material with results pertaining to the earth.

If you had stopped right there, you would have been in pretty good shape. Although substituting "processes" for "forces" would be an improvement.

Chemical breakdown of rocks is chemical processes.. Not geology.

Chemical breakdown of rocks is "A process acting on material with results pertaining to the earth." You contradict yourself.

While I make no claims to being even in the upper half of "geologist quality", I did manage to graduate college with a geology degree. And much to all of what you are saying isn't geology, was indeed covered in my geology classes. To be blunt, you don't know what you're talking about.

Adminnemooseus (and Minnemooseus)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Robert Byers, posted 04-27-2011 12:58 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Robert Byers, posted 04-29-2011 2:42 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 423 of 445 (613764)
04-27-2011 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Robert Byers
04-27-2011 12:38 AM


geology is about processes explaining the earth under our feet. [...] Geology is forces acting upon materials.

And the same process and forces will have different effects on different materials. For example, high pressures and temperatures will have a different effect on calcium carbonate from the effect of the exact same process on cotton candy.

For this reason it is useful to geologists to know that limestone is composed of the former and not the latter.

material makeup must be essential to understand the process for it to be geology.

And it is, in fact, essential. Hence, it is geology.

---

Now, will you stop being wrong about the definition of geology and start being wrong about the Flood instead?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Robert Byers, posted 04-27-2011 12:38 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18312
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 424 of 445 (613771)
04-27-2011 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by Robert Byers
04-27-2011 1:05 AM


The issue we were discussing was the cooling of magma into rock underground. Magma intrudes into rock and then cools, and by looking at things like grain size one can see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock. Radiometric techniques can establish the age. Taq provided you a link that describes such evidence (Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column), and here is just a little of that evidence:

  1. Radiometric dating gives consistent answers across a variety of different methods, and is also consistent with non-radiometric methods where their range of application overlaps.

  2. Calculations show that the cooling of rock underground from a molten state takes a considerable amount of time, longer than 6000 years for plutons of sufficient size (which is common), and analysis of the rock structure reveals they formed through very slow cooling.

For more details please visit the link. What is your response to this evidence?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Robert Byers, posted 04-27-2011 1:05 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Robert Byers, posted 04-29-2011 3:03 AM Percy has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 425 of 445 (613918)
04-29-2011 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Adminnemooseus
04-27-2011 1:49 AM


Re: A side note from the admin-mode
Adminnemooseus writes:

1) Concerning message formatting - I've "personal messaged" you, asking that you make it a practice to insert blank lines between your paragraphs. Doing such makes for nicer reading, regardless of the merit or lack of merit of your content - If nothing else, it looks much better!

2) I fail to see the relevance of whether or not an aspect of scientific study can be properly be called geologic study. Please drop that issue, or at least propose a new topic specific to such. Minnemooseus would even be willing to "Great Debate" you on the matter.

Now a side side note from the non-admin mode:

Geology is about forces acting on material with results pertaining to the earth.

If you had stopped right there, you would have been in pretty good shape. Although substituting "processes" for "forces" would be an improvement.

Chemical breakdown of rocks is chemical processes.. Not geology.

Chemical breakdown of rocks is "A process acting on material with results pertaining to the earth." You contradict yourself.

While I make no claims to being even in the upper half of "geologist quality", I did manage to graduate college with a geology degree. And much to all of what you are saying isn't geology, was indeed covered in my geology classes. To be blunt, you don't know what you're talking about.

Adminnemooseus (and Minnemooseus)

Alright blank lines. Thought I did it enough.

I use the word forces instead of processes because geology is about results in structures of the earth. Chemical breakdown is so minor in affecting the earth structures that in effect its a atomic process on low power merely breaking things done.
Geology surely is about forces moving things however slow or fast.
Chemistry is on a boundary of the real segregational divisions here.
Chemical break down is trivial as any evidence of earth events and processes of note.
Geology is about pick axes and dynamite. Not test tubes.
They just have to include it in geology class under a big tent because it rides a boundary in a minor way. not the real mccoy as i see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2011 1:49 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2011 1:02 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 436 by edge, posted 05-05-2011 6:02 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 426 of 445 (613920)
04-29-2011 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Percy
04-27-2011 5:55 AM


Percy writes:

The issue we were discussing was the cooling of magma into rock underground. Magma intrudes into rock and then cools, and by looking at things like grain size one can see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock. Radiometric techniques can establish the age. Taq provided you a link that describes such evidence (Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column), and here is just a little of that evidence:

  1. Radiometric dating gives consistent answers across a variety of different methods, and is also consistent with non-radiometric methods where their range of application overlaps.

  2. Calculations show that the cooling of rock underground from a molten state takes a considerable amount of time, longer than 6000 years for plutons of sufficient size (which is common), and analysis of the rock structure reveals they formed through very slow cooling.

For more details please visit the link. What is your response to this evidence?

--Percy

I'll put another way.
If the magna never cooled and stayed in its magna state it would not be a act or result of geology.
Ionly after the chemical reaction has stopped and the material, upon cooling and another reaction, becomes hard or rock is it to be seen as geology.
So magna processes are not a part of geology. only the finished material after the magna has ceased to be. Species matters here.
This was my problem. i can't see a chemical action being applied to a geological issue. In nature boundaries over lap but they exist.

Cooling calcuactions is not geology. its chemistry.
I have no interest in that and its not evidence for geological claims in a geology section.
its about rocks and bigger rocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Percy, posted 04-27-2011 5:55 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-29-2011 3:22 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 428 by Percy, posted 04-29-2011 4:53 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 429 by Coragyps, posted 04-29-2011 8:48 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 440 by misha, posted 06-10-2011 11:36 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 427 of 445 (613921)
04-29-2011 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Robert Byers
04-29-2011 3:03 AM


If the magna never cooled and stayed in its magna state it would not be a act or result of geology.
Ionly after the chemical reaction has stopped and the material, upon cooling and another reaction, becomes hard or rock is it to be seen as geology.
So magna processes are not a part of geology. only the finished material after the magna has ceased to be. Species matters here.

While there is a certain amount of amusement to be gotten out of being lectured on geology by someone thinks that "magma" is spelled "magna", I think I'll stick to getting my information about geology from geologists.

This was my problem. i can't see a chemical action being applied to a geological issue.

That's because, unlike geologists, you know fuck-all about geology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Robert Byers, posted 04-29-2011 3:03 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18312
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 428 of 445 (613923)
04-29-2011 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Robert Byers
04-29-2011 3:03 AM


Hi Robert,

Why bother quoting my message in full if you're not going to bother reading it? My message was not about what's geology and what's not. I made no argument about the definition of geology. The word "geology" does not even appear in my message.

You know, one might almost get the feeling that you're not here to discuss anything, not interested in any back and forth, you just want to repeat your own misbegotten and meandering misunderstandings over and over again.

This thread is about the flood. The very rocks you claim are from the flood are far more ancient than you would ever grant the flood to be, and I presented evidence supporting this great age. Our ability to infer the age of rocks from information like rate of cooling, grain size, radiometric analysis, etc., is precisely on-topic for this flood thread. So, one more time, and please don't use the word "geology" in your response:

The issue we were discussing was the cooling of magma into rock underground. Magma intrudes into rock and then cools, and by looking at things like grain size one can see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock. Radiometric techniques can establish the age. Taq provided you a link that describes such evidence (Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column), and here is just a little of that evidence:

  1. Radiometric dating gives consistent answers across a variety of different methods, and is also consistent with non-radiometric methods where their range of application overlaps.

  2. Calculations show that the cooling of rock underground from a molten state takes a considerable amount of time, longer than 6000 years for plutons of sufficient size (which is common), and analysis of the rock structure reveals they formed through very slow cooling.

For more details please visit the link. What is your response to this evidence?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add clarifying paragraph just before the final section that presents the arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Robert Byers, posted 04-29-2011 3:03 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:00 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 429 of 445 (613976)
04-29-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Robert Byers
04-29-2011 3:03 AM


Cooling calcuactions is not geology. its chemistry.

No shit, Robert? Really? Here I've been a professional chemist for 32 years after toomanyyears in Chemistry School, and I've been mistaken the whole time about that chemical change vs. phase change thing? Making ice cubes has been a chemical reaction all along??!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Robert Byers, posted 04-29-2011 3:03 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 430 of 445 (614053)
05-01-2011 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by Robert Byers
04-29-2011 2:42 AM


Take a Hint
Robert Byers writes:

I use the word forces instead of processes because geology is about results in structures of the earth. Chemical breakdown is so minor in affecting the earth structures that in effect its a atomic process on low power merely breaking things done.
Geology surely is about forces moving things however slow or fast.
Chemistry is on a boundary of the real segregational divisions here.
Chemical break down is trivial as any evidence of earth events and processes of note.
Geology is about pick axes and dynamite. Not test tubes.
They just have to include it in geology class under a big tent because it rides a boundary in a minor way. not the real mccoy as i see it.

The absolute ignorance of this statement leaves me aghast.

Look up the term "geochemistry" in Wikipedia, if you can't be bothered to visit a library.

Signed - one with a BS in Geological Engineering and a Master's in categorizing knowledge. However, I do not have a PhD in geochemistry, even though it is offered by dozens of universities. Is that what I need to convince you the field exists?

"Pearls for Swine" - Monty Python

Edited by anglagard, : At this point who cares? How damn stupid can you get?


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Its us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Robert Byers, posted 04-29-2011 2:42 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:07 AM anglagard has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 431 of 445 (614387)
05-04-2011 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by Percy
04-29-2011 4:53 AM


You brought up the issue of cooling as evidence for geological claims.
My criticism was dead on.
Geology should be about processes moving stuff about.
not dating concepts from chemical reactions.
likewise you again bring up this radiometric thing.
Thats not geology.
Thats very atomic types of things.
Theres no geology here one could put a shovel into.
i need geological points as i have no interest or ability in these atomic concepts. They are boring. I need movement.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Percy, posted 04-29-2011 4:53 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Admin, posted 05-04-2011 8:28 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 434 by Coragyps, posted 05-04-2011 8:47 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 432 of 445 (614388)
05-04-2011 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by anglagard
05-01-2011 1:02 AM


Re: Take a Hint
anglagard writes:

Robert Byers writes:

I use the word forces instead of processes because geology is about results in structures of the earth. Chemical breakdown is so minor in affecting the earth structures that in effect its a atomic process on low power merely breaking things done.
Geology surely is about forces moving things however slow or fast.
Chemistry is on a boundary of the real segregational divisions here.
Chemical break down is trivial as any evidence of earth events and processes of note.
Geology is about pick axes and dynamite. Not test tubes.
They just have to include it in geology class under a big tent because it rides a boundary in a minor way. not the real mccoy as i see it.

The absolute ignorance of this statement leaves me aghast.

Look up the term "geochemistry" in Wikipedia, if you can't be bothered to visit a library.

Signed - one with a BS in Geological Engineering and a Master's in categorizing knowledge. However, I do not have a PhD in geochemistry, even though it is offered by dozens of universities. Is that what I need to convince you the field exists?

"Pearls for Swine" - Monty Python

It did turn into a interesting conversation.
i do say the operative word here is CHEMISTRY.
all they did was apply chemial ideas into minor matters of sediment consolidation.
They made a big tent but are wrong to see the real processes of earth sediment as related to special cases of chemistry or bugs making holes in the dirt. I guess they would call that biologicalgeological processes.
Its just bugs and not geology.
Its joining very different subjects together for special investigation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2011 1:02 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Coyote, posted 05-05-2011 12:25 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 438 by anglagard, posted 05-18-2011 2:28 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 439 by Taq, posted 05-18-2011 12:43 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 433 of 445 (614419)
05-04-2011 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by Robert Byers
05-04-2011 1:00 AM


Hi Robert,

Sorry to have to poke my nose in here as Admin again, but you're getting hung up on definitions.

At the time I gave this forum the name Geology and the Great Flood back in 2001 I had in mind a specific definition of geology, one that is captured pretty well over at the Wikipedia article on geology. Whether or not Wikipedia is correctly defining geology, that is the definition that is in play in this thread.

If you would like to debate the definition of geology then please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics and I will review it as quickly as I can.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:00 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 434 of 445 (614569)
05-04-2011 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Robert Byers
05-04-2011 1:00 AM


i need geological points as i have no interest or ability in these atomic concepts.

Again, I must ask: No shit, Robert? What the fuck do you think rocks are made of? And what the fuck do you think you know about even your version of geology?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:00 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 435 of 445 (614571)
05-05-2011 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Robert Byers
05-04-2011 1:07 AM


Summary: Creationists can't do science
The responses in this thread by creationists demonstrate clearly that, when it comes to the global flood, creationists are just making it all up as they go. What a joke!

They have no science, just assertions based on belief. Many of those assertions disagree with one another! They can't even agree among themselves!

The reason for this, of course, is that their assertions are not based on science but on their particular interpretations of an elaborate myth cycle.

They had their chance in this thread to post meaningful evidence, but failed to do so.

Now the remaining creationist is trying to teach geologists how to run their profession. Willful ignorance and denial are such powerful arguments, you know.

So much for creation "science" eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:07 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
25262728
29
30Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019